He has been sending me a number of stupid emails. The latest read as follows:"I see that you sent trolls to my FB page. When I pointed this out to 2 of them neither denied it. So I made my challenge to you public and I will be linking to every page about you where you have been challenged before and turned it down because you are all mouth. I know you will post a bunch of nasty stuff about me, in fact I want you to. All that free advertisement. People like you are the reason my webpage and FB page are so popular. Thanks. Keep up the good work of helping me get the word out there. Your side is so gullible lol."

I replied as follows at 0.16 am BST on 3 April:"You are insane. I have done NO such thing. I don't even know what facebook page you are talking about.Further emails from you will be deleted and ignored, LIAR.You are not a Christian I strongly suspect. Just a lying braggart and bigot.YEC-ism attracts evil people. It let's them remain evil ie it legitimises lying and hatred.I have nothing further to say to you, Bourne. I repeat - any more crap sent to my inbox will be deleted and ignored."

After I replied I managed to track down the facebook page in question. He is either LYING about what happened there, or has DELETED the posts by the 'trolls' he was referring to. Either way he is a coward as well as a false accuser suffering from apparent paranoia - because he has blocked me from making ANY response to his fact-free accusation:https://www.facebook.com/EvolutionIsALie (post made 4 hours ago)"***It would seem a atheist troll named Ashley Hayworth Roberts sent his troll minions to this page. I challenged him to a formal debate in which he would not accept or reject. So I called him a coward.You see Roberts is a type of troll that can dish it, but can never take it. He's all happy spewing hatred at everyone else but when it gets spewed back at him he cries and whines. Example: Someone said something bad about him on a website so he got the police involved but guess what? it was not as bad as what I have seen him say about others.I archived all the e-mails he send his troll buddies through e-mails so I hope he does try to bring the police in on this. Because reading those e-mails where he rants will show he's got a mental condition.Roberts I may have e-mailed you but I did not send trolls to your pages or sites like you have done here. So this post is your fault. I told you that what was said between me and you would not be made public but being the drama queen that you are you just had to defy that and make my emails public anyway.But you left out the part where I challenged you to a debate and you cowardly turned it down. Now if you want to keep this up and send more trolls I will make public on my website what you said and how much a coward you are.Both trolls here that I mentioned your name to did not even deny they were not here or did not know you. Which by the way speaks volumes about what you did. I hope you turn this into another news letter I just love free advertisement. How do you think my site and this page got so popular? People like you did this.My debate challenge still stand and now it's public. I will publicly apologize and convert to atheism if you can back up all that you claim. Here's your chance to convert one of the most influential people on the internet which would be a huge feather in your cap. All you have to do is accept the debate challenge.Do you need to pot sweetened? I'll let you get 9 of your friends to help you to make it 10 to 1 odds. I want to be fair, is that fair enough 10 to one odds? Maybe you need that number to be bigger?I think it's time to shut you up and I'm the person to do it. If you win I convert, If I win you have to step away from all the hatred you spew at everyone. So what will it be? As I have told you this page and my website reach 60,000 to 120,000 people a week. I can bring all of that over to watch this debate.Because I doubt FB would want all that hoopla here I'll set the debate up in a special forum just made for it. I'll name it Evolution is a Lie page debates. Name one whole section after our debate. So what's it going to be?Remember you started this by making my e-mails public, then sending your trolls to this page. Now i'm going to finish it with a debate challenge. So what's it going to be? Can;t hide behind that computer all the time and take pot shots at people and not expect to call you out. ~ Issac"

It would seem there is a loose screw which could do with tightening. He's the drama queen if there is one here. His final para is 100% FALSE. I did not copy his earlier emails to me to ANYONE. (I did copy the latest exchange and then the link to his facebook page - once I located it - page to five people within the LAST HOUR just in case any of them went to Bourne's page OF THEIR OWN ACCORD.)

He's angry because I send emails copied to a number of people, including him, refuting the likes of Ken Ham (people who ask to be removed from the list are removed - other than Bob Sorensen - but Bourne has not made any such request). (His recent emails to me only have been just angry trolling - he accused me of being mentally ill etc and also pretended that I had NEVER, briefly, debated him on THIS forum.)

I wasn't going to highlight his ridiculous behaviour but if someone has trolled his page I would like them to tell him that I have NOTHING to do with it. He is consumed with hate and out of touch with reality, and I want nothing further to do with him.

"And he will twist everything you say and send it as part of his new letters then deny it and call you the liar, As he just did here. This is normal talk with this guy, normal. To the rest of us this is insane." That is his comment on his page of 5 hours ago after he quoted my response to his absurd email allegation that because some 'trolls' visited his page ergo I was 'to blame'; more incoherent nonsense from a nobody who calls his blog 'YEC Headquarters' and who thinks he deserves to have me 'debate' him (in another. long-winded, email to me dated 31 March - which totally ignored the contents of an email I sent on 28 March UK time* - he wrote: "maybe you'd like to feed that ego of your's and debate me under my terms?"). I have twisted nothing that he has said. I don't need to. This thread quotes his email of last night in FULL. And - until his emails of the past week attacking me - I have been ignoring Bourne and his pages for months. Yet he seems to take it personally that I sent a number of people, including him, an email exposing the hypocritical behaviour of Ken Ham.

* Reproduced on this forum at 0.30 am BST on 28 March - see the thread about Ken Ham.

YEC Bob Sorensen has chimed in at the Bourne facebook page:"He's insane and a demoniac [you can tell Bob is a 'Christian' and loves 'truth'], but somehow, I don't think he sent people *directly* [I have not sent ANY unidentified people, whether 'directly' or 'indirectly', to the Bourne anti-science rant facebook page - which I was only able to rediscover and read after searching for past posts on this forum where I DID briefly debate Bourne, contrary to his current LYING that I am too 'cowardly' to debate him]. Haywire's been hanging out with some feral atheopaths, and they have been doing a great deal of lying [name ONE lie by these people Bob], fake accounts (which can result in identity theft) [within the Facebook rules as otherwise I think facebook would have closed down TQEP Debunked], and getting their hides banned from creationist Pages [any excuse to ban people who ask awkward questions of young earth creationists]. The trolls did not deny that he sent them, but that is not proof [of course it is not; Bourne has of course declined to tell me who these people are and exactly what if anything they said when Bourne got paranoid and thought that I had 'sent' them; I do NOT 'send' people to YEC sites, I either go there myself or don't bother]. Of course, the typical "YECs are evil" whine is there, but he *cannot* say why it would be wrong for a Christian to act like an atheist, nor can he show why *anything* is right or wrong in his worldview [one aspect of YEC evil, just one, is that they stereotype all anti-creationists as 'atheist'* and all atheists as evil and stupid].

I have never thought of Bob as paranoid, just profoundly dishonest and somewhat misguided and stupid. But he appears less stupid than Issac Bourne.

* Correction at 3.40 am. Nearly all - unless there is compelling information that the person is a 'compromiser' professing Christian, in which case the options are either to admit that they believe in a God but insinuate that they are probably not a real Christian or to suggest that they must be an atheist who is pretending to be 'Christian'.

Issac Bourne pretends to be a Christian but practices Sabellianism. Christians call this a heresy and it is informally known as modalism among other names. 'Evolution is a Lie' seldom posts material from the standard creationist groups. Issac Bourne loathes Cowboy Bob Sorensen. The YEC beliefs of Issac Bourne are reputed to be different from those of 'biblical creationists'.

MisterGordons wrote:Issac Bourne pretends to be a Christian but practices Sabellianism. Christians call this a heresy and it is informally known as modalism among other names. 'Evolution is a Lie' seldom posts material from the standard creationist groups. Issac Bourne loathes Cowboy Bob Sorensen. The YEC beliefs of Issac Bourne are reputed to be different from those of 'biblical creationists'.

Looks like Gordons is correct this time. Bourne is pretending to be a 'Christian'. But he is evil and possibly insane - FALSELY claiming that I sent 'trolls' to his page even though I and the five people I emailed on Sunday night (along with Cowboy Bob Sorensen) know that I did NOT. https://www.facebook.com/EvolutionIsALie"Nothing like a big long winded whine from an atheist troll who cannot stand reality. This is the guy that refuses to debate me I even gave him 10 to 1 odds. That he could get 9 of his friends to help him. He wants nothing to do with me but he sent trolls to this page the other day. Several showed up right after I called him a coward. On well. ~ Issac" [the fraud then links to the WRONG BCSE thread]

The man is sick.

If you want to see whether he carries on hating and hating, please check his page over the coming days. That is, I do not intend to provide a running commentary on his evil.

Just saw this on Bourne's facebook page:"Darwin was an outspoken racist, his full title of his book proved that." UTTER GARBAGE. He lived in an era where it was considered OK to express racist/imperialist views but he was NOT an 'outspoken racist'.'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.'http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005_2.html

How these low IQ bigots LOVE lies and LOVE spreading ignorance. Perhaps it gives them a sense of importance and even superiority. This Bourne character also has no detectable sense of humour. Even Cowboy Bob Sorensen occasionally displays a sense of humour.

Liar Bourne pretending that the only evidence for evolution is the fossil record. And on that basis he's just 'destroyed' evolution on his page. Seriously.

Liar Bourne trying to start a vendetta against William Lane Craig for saying (several years ago) that it's embarrassing that a majority of US pastors think the universe is just 10,000 or so years old. Apparently because he is not a rabid opponent of geological science, Lane Craig is - according to Bourne - denying "the Creator before man". "What did Jesus say? You deny me before Man I shall deny you before my Father in Heaven." Seriously. Bourne is also extremely full of himself: Lane Craig has become a 'fool' and "if you read this, anytime you want to debate this let me know. Using science and the Bible I will walk up one side and down the other and make you look like an embarrassment."

a_haworthroberts wrote:Seriously. Bourne is also extremely full of himself: Lane Craig has become a 'fool' and "if you read this, anytime you want to debate this let me know. Using science and the Bible I will walk up one side and down the other and make you look like an embarrassment."

Issac Bourne does not believe the Bible so he has no business using it whilst arguing against William Lane Craig.

a_haworthroberts wrote:Just saw this on Bourne's facebook page:"Darwin was an outspoken racist, his full title of his book proved that." UTTER GARBAGE. He lived in an era where it was considered OK to express racist/imperialist views but he was NOT an 'outspoken racist'.'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.'http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005_2.html

How these low IQ bigots LOVE lies and LOVE spreading ignorance. Perhaps it gives them a sense of importance and even superiority. This Bourne character also has no detectable sense of humour. Even Cowboy Bob Sorensen occasionally displays a sense of humour.

Ashley Haworth-Roberts contradicts himself. He then ignores the truth.

According to Ashley Haworth-Roberts Darwin was not a racist but he was also a racist because of the times in which he lived.

Charles Darwin was a racist.

'I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.' Found in Charles Darwin: Life and Letters, I, letter to W. Graham, July 3, 1881, p. 316

'At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes… will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. ' Found in The Descent of Man chapter VI.

a_haworthroberts wrote:Just saw this on Bourne's facebook page:"Darwin was an outspoken racist, his full title of his book proved that." UTTER GARBAGE. He lived in an era where it was considered OK to express racist/imperialist views but he was NOT an 'outspoken racist'.'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.'http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005_2.html

How these low IQ bigots LOVE lies and LOVE spreading ignorance. Perhaps it gives them a sense of importance and even superiority. This Bourne character also has no detectable sense of humour. Even Cowboy Bob Sorensen occasionally displays a sense of humour.

Ashley Haworth-Roberts contradicts himself. He then ignores the truth.

According to Ashley Haworth-Roberts Darwin was not a racist but he was also a racist because of the times in which he lived.

Charles Darwin was a racist.

'I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.' Found in Charles Darwin: Life and Letters, I, letter to W. Graham, July 3, 1881, p. 316

'At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes… will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. ' Found in The Descent of Man chapter VI.

You have posted material that I was not familiar with. I was not then ignoring truth or evidence - and I am not ignoring them now.

Because of the era in which he lived, Darwin knew nothing of genetics. The assumption was that dark skinned people might not have been fully human but were closer to apes such as gorillas or chimps than white skinned people. And maybe the behaviour of Turks or people in Africa WAS less civilised than that of (some/most) Caucasians? But we now know that there is just one human race and still extant human species - and negroes or aborigines (or oriental people groups) are just as human as the white British or white Americans.

It is unclear to me what was meant by 'anthropomorphous ape' - it could mean dark skinned people who were considered a bit ape-like, or it could mean great apes like gorillas or chimps which have some human-like characteristics.

It is certainly the case that young earth creationists/anti-evolutionists throw a lot of mud at Charles Darwin:http://creation.com/the-darwin-effect-review(I only glanced at this but they appear to be blaming Darwin and/or later 'Darwinists' for eugenics - even though Darwin himself could not have known about 'improving the genetic quality of the human population'. It is undeniable that some have misused the ideas of Darwin - just as some today misuse eg the ideas found within Islam for savage and murderous objectives.)

Bourne on his tightly policed facebook page:"Did you know the the Nautilist is a living fossil? It's found on the bottom of the fossil record which means it;s supposed to be simple life. Complex life had not supposedly evolved yet. But the Nautilist has complex systems and organs. ~ Issac".

Erm - not quite sure what a Nautilist is. A mollusc that believes in 'nautilism', maybe?